NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so far we've seen how Bush handles a war, which is basically go in there totally unprepared for what may lie ahead, expecting smooth sailing sunshines and kitten farts, get the exact opposite, and try to backtrack and start over while having our men and women shot at. However, given the fact that yes the war was wrong, we should've gone in there with full force, we should've opened up the gates of Hell. Bush should've listen to Colin Powell. So given the fact that Bush didn't listen to someone who's been in Iraq before and has more combat experience than him, and that we didn't open up the gates of Hell, well we're going down shit creek without a paddle. So, given what we've seen what Bush can do with a war, I just have to ask this question. If the Democrats do win the House and Senate, what will their plan of Iraq be? I ask because I never really heard one, so I'm just curious. Alot of people saying that the Democrats will just cut and run, but I hope that's not the case, because doing that while Iraq is still not stable will be more wrong than it was to go in there.

So Democrats of NSG, what is the Democrat party plan for Iraq?

you know that as the commander-in-chief, it's the president's job to handle military strategy and planning, right?

and as Congress never actually signed a declaration of war (they just signed a bill saying that the president could declare war in Iraq if he wanted to), it never even has been congress's responsability.


...


holy shit.

I just downloaded Firefox version 2.0, and apparently it spellchecks the stuff i type on the forums.

how cool is that?

you know that as the commander-in-chief, it's the president's job to handle military strategy and planning, right?

and as Congress never actually signed a declaration of war (they just signed a bill saying that the president could declare war in Iraq if he wanted to), it never even has been congress's responsability.


...


holy shit.

I just downloaded Firefox version 2.0, and apparently it spellchecks the stuff i type on the forums.

how cool is that?

Very cool, now I'm going to have to go download it.

and it is true, but Congress could pass a timeline couldn't they?

they could, but I've got ten bucks that says Bush would just make one of his signing statements and ignore it.

they could, but I've got ten bucks that says Bush would just make one of his signing statements and ignore it.

Sucker bet!

they could, but I've got ten bucks that says Bush would just make one of his signing statements and ignore it.

That is true, well, let's just pretend that Democrats gets a hold of the White House then, and we're still in Iraq in 2008.


Wow, it really does check spelling. I wonder if it checks grammar too?

That is true, well, let's just pretend that Democrats gets a hold of the White House then, and we're still in Iraq in 2008.

It all depends on who's running.

A general on the ticket (or at least a vet) is going to have a very different plan for getting out than a businessman.


I, personally, support any plan that involves overturning administrative matters to NATO or UN, splitting off an independent Kurdistan, and involves sitting down and talking to the religious leaders instead of just condemning them.

Wow, it really does check spelling. I wonder if it checks grammar too?

I not think it so.

nope. :p

but if you right-click on a misspelled word, it gives you a list of correct spellings.

It all depends on who's running.

A general on the ticket (or at least a vet) is going to have a very different plan for getting out than a businessman.


I, personally, support any plan that involves overturning administrative matters to NATO or UN, splitting off an independent Kurdistan, and involves sitting down and talking to the religious leaders instead of just condemning them.



I not think it so.

nope. :p

but if you right-click on a misspelled word, it gives you a list of correct spellings.

Yea I saw that, and you are right, I guess we'll just have to wait for the 2008 election to see what the Democrats plan is.

Hahaha. Splitting off Kurdistan. That just cracks me up. It'll take the Turks a few months to go in an have a clean-up session, when that happens. Off course, first we'd see a few bombs in Istanbul, and then they could justify it as 'GWAT' - as anything is these days.

Iraq has to be one country...not three. If it splits, all hell will break loose, which will include a few neighbours...not just internal fighting. I agree that cut and run would be disasterous. We all see that the current tactic doesn't work. So, that leaves one option: more troops, more infrastructure and security investments. It's a nice little money drainer that Bush opened here. Off course not for everybody...but those profiting from the war got nice tax cuts with it - so the states money doesn't actually come back. But of course, Bush will want to hand it over to the UN, after not caring for its opinon.

In simple terms: its a f$%^ed up situation. Cut and run = (most likely) a lovely place for terrorist camps = more dead Americans. Go in stronger = more dead Americans (soldiers this time). So either way, you're f$%^ed. And the rest of the world is watching and has a 'I told you so' on the lips.

The reason the middle east is such a messed up place right now is because of the red line agreement and other such idiocy after WW1.

Imagine today if an outside force gave from Montana to Oklahoma to Canada, gave Florida to Maine to Cuba, and Oregon to Texas to Mexico.

Do you think all those different cultures would work together peacefully? I doubt it.

If you want to end Middle eastern conflicts in the long term (sure: it'd be bad as the current governments resist giving up their large, though turmoiled, lands and letting minority cultures split off), revert the regions back to their ethnic and cultural nations/nomadic states.

Kurdistan is as good a place to start as any. the Sunnis and the Shi'ites can't agree on how to run the nation? then give each their own nation, and they won't have to deal with each other anymore.

Look at what the Brits did when they split India between the predominantly Muslim region (now known as Pakistan) and the predominantly Hindu region (now known as India)

sure, it's tense at the border: but you rather have a civil war?


and you say "cut and run" as if anyone is seriously talking about packing our bags and evacuating next weekend.

Overturn administration and security to International powers, and let the world work together to fix this problem. We clearly can't do it ourselves.

they dont have one, they just whine a lot and hope for the best.

they dont have one, they just whine a lot and hope for the best.

Funny, that sounds about like the Republican line as well...

It's hard work...

Yea I saw that, and you are right, I guess we'll just have to wait for the 2008 election to see what the Democrats plan is.

Bush said as much a couple of months ago. He said that what happens in Iraq would be left to future presidents, so yes, we will probably still be having this conversation in 2008.

Very cool, now I'm going to have to go download it.

and it is true, but Congress could pass a timeline couldn't they?

And I doubt you'd see that happening. In American politics today it's be a good team player instead of do what is right. Democrats have suggested benchmarks and timelines several times to no avail. Bush has said both publicly and privately that timeline would "send the wrong messege to the terrists. That is they wait us out the will of America will give out and then they will be free to turn Iraq into a terrist training ground." So you see my dear man, they've already tried what you suggest to no avail. The only way would be for some of my fellow Republicans in office to have the personal integrity to tell the President he is wrong. What are the odds of that happening?

So Democrats of NSG, what is the Democrat party plan for Iraq?

Plan?! We're Democrats! We don't *plan*!

Plan?! We're Democrats! We don't *plan*!
The scary thing is that even when we do plan, the "librul media" doesn't tell anyone about it. But man, they're all over any Republican who'll say that we don't have a plan.